On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Warren Wang - ISD <warren.w...@walmart.com> wrote: > I would prefer that this is something more generic, to possibly support other > backends one day, like ceph-volume. Creating one tool per backend seems silly. > > Also, ceph-lvm seems to imply that ceph itself has something to do with lvm, > which it really doesn’t. This is simply to deal with the underlying disk. If > there’s resistance to something more generic like ceph-volume, then it should > at least be called something like ceph-disk-lvm.
Sage, you had mentioned the need for "composable" tools for this, and I think that if we go with `ceph-volume` we could allow plugins for each strategy. We are starting with `lvm` support so that would look like: `ceph-volume lvm` The `lvm` functionality could be implemented as a plugin itself, and when we start working with supporting regular disks, then `ceph-volume disk` can come along, etc... It would also open the door for anyone to be able to write a plugin to `ceph-volume` to implement their own logic, while at the same time re-using most of what we are implementing today: logging, reporting, systemd support, OSD metadata, etc... If we were to separate these into single-purpose tools, all those would need to be re-done. > > 2 cents from one of the LVM for Ceph users, > Warren Wang > Walmart ✻ > > On 6/16/17, 10:25 AM, "ceph-users on behalf of Alfredo Deza" > <ceph-users-boun...@lists.ceph.com on behalf of ad...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > At the last CDM [0] we talked about `ceph-lvm` and the ability to > deploy OSDs from logical volumes. We have now an initial draft for the > documentation [1] and would like some feedback. > > The important features for this new tool are: > > * parting ways with udev (new approach will rely on LVM functionality > for discovery) > * compatibility/migration for existing LVM volumes deployed as directories > * dmcache support > > By documenting the API and workflows first we are making sure that > those look fine before starting on actual development. > > It would be great to get some feedback, specially if you are currently > using LVM with ceph (or planning to!). > > Please note that the documentation is not complete and is missing > content on some parts. > > [0] http://tracker.ceph.com/projects/ceph/wiki/CDM_06-JUN-2017 > [1] http://docs.ceph.com/ceph-lvm/ > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@lists.ceph.com > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com > > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@lists.ceph.com http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
